Beware the Kansas City Chiefs

Ted BartlettSep 20, 2013 3:30 PM

Happy Friday, friends. I still haven’t had the four hours or so necessary to watch the All-22 of the Broncos-Giants game, and then write an article on it. I’m planning to do that tomorrow, so check the site on a Saturday. (I know you all have the capability.) I actually planned to watch the film last night, but I got caught up watching the Chiefs-Eagles game instead.

You’re not going to like this, but I thought it was time that we all came to the realization that the Chiefs are legitimate. Briefly, today, I’ll share some thoughts on this most regrettable of topics.

For Kansas City, it all starts with their ability to play defense, specifically man-to-man coverage on defense. They have two above-average man corners in Brandon Flowers and Sean Smith, and they also have safety Eric Berry, who’s proving to be very capable at covering TEs man-to-man.

When you can play man coverage (like the Broncos can, as well), you get more options tactically than you’d have if your guys could only hold up in zone. If you can play 5-on-5, with one high safety, you’re left with a free guy, to either use as an extra rusher, or as a robber type of player in coverage.

What’s maybe even more impressive about the Chiefs is that they’re getting dominant play off both edges (Justin Houston and Tamba Hali) and on the nose, with the vastly improved Dontari Poe. This Chiefs team can really generate some pressure on the QB, and that dovetails nicely with being able to lock down good receivers outside.

I saw some comments in the Lard today saying that the Chiefs looked like an average team. I don’t agree with that. As I watched them, I thought they looked a good deal like the 2011 49ers, and that team probably should have been in the Super Bowl.

Alex Smith has been doing an excellent job of managing the game, and the Chiefs have zero turnovers through three games. At this point, nobody can say that Smith is a fluke when it comes to protecting the football. In 2011, his interception rate was 1.1%, which led the NFL. In 2012, it was 2.3%, which tied with Matt Ryan for tenth. This year, obviously, it’s zero. He is good at not throwing the ball to the other team.

Smith isn’t really a big play guy, but with the defense Kansas City has, he doesn’t have to be. He can matriculate the ball down the field, and do well enough by getting the ball to the open guy short. He’s also added 115 rushing yards in three games, which is a good amount for a QB.

There’s a way to win in the NFL, by playing good defense (particularly against the pass), and by winning the turnover battle. That’s what the 49ers did the last couple years, and that’s what this year’s Chiefs team is doing.

I said in an email to the other IAOFM guys yesterday that the Chiefs were probably destined to regress to the mean on turnovers, but the more I think about it, the less I think they will. Smith is huge in that regard, as mentioned, but it’s notable that the team has only even fumbled the ball once in three games. (That was credited to Smith.)

Recovering fumbles is random, and highly dependent on luck, but not fumbling the ball isn’t random. It’s a skill, and a discipline, and a coaching priority. So far, it looks like this is another skill that the Chiefs have going for them.

I know what some of you are thinking - they haven't played anybody yet! How do you know? Is it fully clear yet who is a good team and who's a bad team? I'll grant you that Jacksonville is in rough shape this year. Dallas, though, has the talent to compete with anybody in the NFL. The fact that KC's corners mostly won against Dallas's WRs is compelling evidence of the quality of the Chiefs defense. As for Philadelphia, they have pretty good offensive talent too, and their scheme makes that talent a step better. (Admittedly, their defense isn't good.)

I don’t necessarily think that the Chiefs are ready to win a Super Bowl this year, but I do think they’ll give anybody they play a hard time on any given Sunday. To beat their defense, you have to run the ball well, and beat up on their nickel CB with good play from the slot. Philly got them for 260 yards rushing, and 9.3 yards per carry, and it's clear that the Chiefs can still be run on.

To beat their offense, it’s helpful to bottle up the running game, and to keep Smith in long yardage situations. If you let him get to 3rd-and-4 very often, he’s going to beat you. Over the long run of a game, Smith makes up for not being great at drilling the 20-yard deep out by almost always finding the right receiver on 3rd-and-4, and almost always putting the short throw right where it needs to be.

I would say that the Chiefs are probably the second-most impressive team I’ve seen in the AFC so far this season. It’s a credit to Andy Reid, and the smart moves they made, like keeping LT Branden Albert, signing Sean Smith and DE Mike DeVito, trading for Alex Smith, and picking up Donnie Avery (who has skills) off the scrap heap. I think they may have erred in taking RT Eric Fisher first overall (I thought the best players in the class were DT Star Lotulelei and OLB Jarvis Jones), but Fisher is still likely going to be a good player.

It’s early, but we should watch out for the Chiefs. If they can beat Houston at home in Week 7, there’s a pretty good chance we could see 8-0 9-0 Kansas City visiting Denver on November 17th (coming off a bye) to play a 9-0 Broncos team. How exciting would that be?

Edit - 3:50 PM Arizona Time - I'm apparently an accountant who can't count. The November 17th game will be the 10th game for both the Chiefs and Broncos.

1. I’m not in the arguing business, I’m in the saying what I think business.
2. I get my information from my eyes.

Those 3rd down rates for both the Broncos and Chiefs scream regression towards the mean. Even if we expect Denver's defense to remain above average and the Chief's offense to remain below average, neither team will likely continue at that rate.

Posted by DragonPie on 2013-09-22 03:44:33

Right. So I guess he also "lost" to Tony Romo, "lost" to Joe Flacco and "lost" to John Skelton (!) that year, huh? You know, since quarterbacks are playing each other and there aren't other players on the field and all.

Posted by Kwash on 2013-09-21 22:19:15

I've always found the, "it was a big play so it doesn't count" argument to be pretty stupid. A team gives up big plays because of a mental breakdown or physical limitations either of which is a repeatable occurrence. In KC's case it's symptomatic of a defense that has good pieces but also some weak links.

You are also missing some of the pieces on the Giants team. They go 3 deep at WR have a decent tight end. It's really Cruz though that is the difference maker for the Giants. Also with KC's offense as weak as it is Eli usually would have a great game because he isn't going to be making the mistakes that he normally would.

Also your comments about Wilson make me wonder if you watched the Denver game at all? The fumbles are old hat by now and Coughlin is committed to the run, which can be the difference maker here.

The nice thing is the game is still to be played so we shall see who is right and who is...

Posted by Fan in Exile on 2013-09-21 17:52:15

Actually, troll, it was Jim Harbaugh, one of the smartest coaches in the NFL who inflicted that on the Niners. And I would be very careful about throwing the word "dumbass" around if you think that Alex Smith is a better QB than Colin Kaepernick.

Posted by AldenBrown on 2013-09-21 14:57:37

From ESPN:Alex Smith completed 21-31 for 258 yards on passes 10 yards or fewer downfield (vs the Eagles). Smith was 1-4 on passes further than 10 yards downfield. Since 2012, Alex Smith has thrown an interception on 1.5% of his pass attempts. Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers are the only quarterbacks with a lower percentage during that span.

Posted by bradley on 2013-09-21 14:48:57

This is the only legitimate criticism on here. The line has been terrible and Asamoah has been an extreme weakspot next to an already weak RT slot with the high-ceiling but very Raw and currently low floor Rookie.

Posted by skwirrl on 2013-09-21 14:07:38

Baltimore and Cincy are absolute garbage. They play 2 of the 3 good AFC teams. The only other one is minus a walking injury, a moron and murderer currently.

Posted by skwirrl on 2013-09-21 14:04:31

Your friend is the dumbass who has now inflicted a QB on the Niners that can't beat any team with a good secondary because he plays right into their strength. SeaChickens, Rams and Ravens (when not playing prevent all second half) all have Colin's number

Posted by skwirrl on 2013-09-21 14:02:16

You'll see it when he beats Payton just like he beats Brees, like he beats Rodgers and like he was beating Eli in 2011 before Kyle Williams fumbled the ball 3 times to include a game clincher in OT.

Posted by skwirrl on 2013-09-21 14:00:33

You should have watched the games. Because you obviously didn't. The first two games (and pre-season) nobody could run on the Chiefs. Vick was responsible for 100 of those yards and 61 of them on 1 carry. McCoy also popped a 41 yarder. That's 2 plays (that according to 6 other games have been mostly a fluke) for 100 yards.

And the differences between the Giants and Cowboys are -

The boys have Dez, Witten and Miles with Romo throwing to them behind a pretty good line with DeMarco Murray and have Ware, Claiborne, Carr, Bruce Carter, Sean Lee, Will Allen and Barry Church.

The Giants have Nicks and Cruz being thrown to by Eli behind a pretty bad line with a running back that gets benched for fumblitis... and on defense they have Tuck, JPP, Cancer-boy and uhhhhhhhhh that's about it. I'll take that Cowboys roster all day every day.

Posted by skwirrl on 2013-09-21 13:57:39

IMO Chiefs will be "in" a lot of games but their season hinges on the health of Charles. He is the only pt producer on that offense.

Soooo good luck with that KC. 9-7 prediction.

Posted by Orange_and_Blue on 2013-09-21 10:28:25

I see KC as a playoff team due to lack of competition in the AFC. They are improved, but traditionally strong Ravens, Bengals, Pats, Pitt, Indy and Houston all look very vulnerable/inconsistent - and KC looks the same. This bodes well for our boys in Orange. Reminding myself its only week 3.....

Posted by iowabronco on 2013-09-21 09:06:29

Beware of Manbearpig.

Posted by iowabronco on 2013-09-21 09:01:18

My sentiments as well. Lets see them beat a top 10 team before we say they are second best in the afc.

Posted by 53guys on 2013-09-21 08:58:09

I usually agree with your analysis, but in this case I think the chiefs will be exposed once they play a complete team, especially one with a good defense. Dallas has the talent to be one, but they are dysfunctional as usual. You may be correct that, as a result of their cakewalk of a schedule, they might not play a complete team until week 11.

Posted by 53guys on 2013-09-21 08:48:18

I thought KC would turn a corner last year due to an improved defense. The defense, with the four Pro Bowlers, obviously did, but quarterback play limited them. After three games this year I think this:

1. They defense is very good, but vulnerable against the run and #1 receivers.

2. The offensive line has regressed even with Brandon Albert back and Fisher.

The defense in back-to-back games gave up 12 receptions for 203 yds and one TD to #1 receivers. It would have been more except for a wide open drop by Dez Bryant and Michael Vick. In other words, it wasn't limited due to great defense. Also, in one game they just went from a top 3 rush defense to middle of the pack.

The offensive line, in the past two games has given up nine sacks, 13 tackles for loss, and 11 QB hits. That was against a good, not great, Dallas pass rush and the Philly D that had been torched by Washington (2nd half) and San Diego.

All that to say that KC is good and will give a lot of teams fits this year, but they are at least a year and two or three more components from being contenders.

Posted by Scott Jackson on 2013-09-21 08:07:58

Dez Bryant got deep three times against Brandon Flowers. He dropped one where he clearly had two steps on Flowers. Also, Dallas's TD drive was all Dez Bryant. I see Flowers as a liability against a top flight #1 receiver.

Posted by Scott Jackson on 2013-09-21 07:48:47

Ted, how would you rank the 4 AFC West head coaches in terms of clock-management ability?

Posted by MississippiMudWalk on 2013-09-21 05:06:30

Crappy teams made even crappier by lousy coaching and brutal luck with injuries who accumulate high draft picks over a few years stand a decent chance of showing marked improvement with better coaching, healthy bodies, and good high draft picks. Plus, anybody care to remind us what round the Chiefs drafted Justin Houston?

Posted by MississippiMudWalk on 2013-09-21 05:05:16

I saw a KC team in that game that struggled very hard to get anything going on what most of us agree is a weak defense. I think their offense will hold them back.

Posted by Dirdybou on 2013-09-21 04:05:02

No reason for you to get crucified. Ted's the only one who sees it with Alex Smith. He's the anomaly, not you.

Posted by Kwash on 2013-09-21 01:48:13

for almost a decade Tanahans teams started out super strong and faded down the stretch.. and folded like a cheap tent in the playoffs..

I'm guessing lots of homers have forgotten those facts..

Having the chefs at 3-0 right now is short of a miracle.. considering just how bad they have been the past almost decade..

It is not just having talent which they are loaded with on D, but turning the losing culture around.. I think Andy has them believing in themselves..

Posted by Lonestar47 on 2013-09-21 00:26:05

great post.. unlike many youmight see marginalizing them..as you said they have been drafting talent in the lower half of the draft for some years..

Many of which will start coming on the UFA market very soon..

as you said "Haley" casued alot of the issues the past couple of years..

BUT no one that is not a complete homer can comment that their talent on D and all the pro bowlers that have went to HNL is not legit..

they will give DEN some ball games over the next couple of years. and maybe beyond..

they have a legit coach that is no longer concerned about his wayward son and the deat of his life time friend and DC a few years ago..

He has a new slate to work with now and loads of talent from the drafts they have been doing..

Posted by Lonestar47 on 2013-09-21 00:21:54

Kansas City's starting defense looks extremely formidable, but 20% of the defensive players on their roster were waived by other teams prior to the start of the season. If Kansas City suffers a single injury on defense, then they'll be covering one of Denver's WRs with a guy who got cut by the Niners or a guy who got cut by the Seahawks. If they have unusually good fortune with injuries (much like the 2011 San Francisco 49ers), then the Chiefs can give hell to any offense in the league (although against a legitimate defense, Kansas City's offense will probably turn into "give it to Jamaal and hope he breaks a big one"). If Kansas City lost Flowers and Hali, though, I doubt it would weather the storm nearly as well as Denver has handled the loss of Miller and Bailey.

Posted by Kibbles on 2013-09-20 23:51:39

Philadelphia´s offense might need Vick to work at full tilt, but he simultaneously kills it with his stupid decisions and turnovers, which have been a permanent feature of his. Given how perfectly DeSean Jackson and LeSean McCoy fit the Kelly offense, I am beginning to wonder if the coaching staff shouldn´t see if they can make it work with Barkley. It won´t happen, but these turnovers are taking points off the scoreboard for the Eagles and directly adding them to the opponent´s total.

Posted by Goéland on 2013-09-20 23:50:28

I'm of the "too early to tell" group with regard to both KC and Philly.Both have new head coaches; both have new schemes, both of some noticeable talent.what I'll watch is whether either or both is able to correct mistakes and develop new talent and better execution. IMO KC's talent hasn't been developed and used effectively. Likewise, it seem too early to conclude that their OL and QB play has reached its upside.For Philly it is even more the case. I have to admit I'm skeptical that Kelly's helter-skelter offense approach can be adequately disciplined to avoid killing mistakes and turnovers. Likewise, it seems that the Eagle defense is almost primitive. But both are in the early stages of realizing what their upside and execution possibilities might become after coaching and will depend largely on the quality of that coaching.IMO it's early yet.

I agree with everything you said, and I am not yet convinced they are suddenly that much better than maybe we expected. That said, they did go on the road to the east coast and win. Sure, Philly has been losing at home a lot lately, but I don't think many folks thought the Chiefs would go in their and pull it off. Sure their offense is decidedly unimpressive, but I think their D will keep them in most games, IF they can get their run defense problems fixed. We had a team that had a similar recipe just a few years ago. I would be shocked if they go 9-0, but I could imagine without laughing a solid 5-4 or maybe 6-3, given who they play.

Posted by FarAwayBroncoFan on 2013-09-20 22:56:09

If you think of the differences between the Giants and the Cowboys you can probably answer your own question. Hint there are three important ones.

Posted by Fan in Exile on 2013-09-20 22:55:55

KC did not look good on offense, but they will get better. Smith will get more comfortable with his receivers, Charles is always dangerous and Reid knows how to get the best out of his quarterbacks. With that defense, they will always be in every game. The OL did look terrible, though.

Posted by mikewyd on 2013-09-20 22:38:38

Witnessed. But I must inform you that I'm a professional witness, so my standard fee* would have to be collected before the deal could be finalized.* You would be my first/last client, so the amount of the standard fee has not been established.

Posted by CompUser on 2013-09-20 22:09:13

I have a friend who writes for a 49ers site. This sounds exactly like the kind of things he was writing all through Smith's tenure with the 49ers. Smith was always just good enough to keep making you think he might become something, but he just never could take that next step. You could certainly do a lot worse than Alex Smith at QB, and he's a big upgrade for the Chiefs, but he doesn't make you stop looking for a franchise QB.

Posted by AldenBrown on 2013-09-20 21:18:44

Thanks Ted.I defer to your expertise and do think KC is absolutely a contender for a playoff spot. But I still remain a bit skeptical they're more than a .500 team and maintain that Eagles did a lot of self inflicted mistakes last night. BUT KC is playing solid football, have far better coaching this year and there's certainly talent. Still not scared of their offense but Smith is far more competent a QB than they've had recently.

Also what was up with Eagles going for two in first quarter last night?!

Posted by underdog on 2013-09-20 20:50:40

Plus, Romo could do you know what to a wet dream

Posted by bradley on 2013-09-20 20:47:37

IDK, 5 (really 4) TO's (vs. 0) and KC wasn't able to blow Philly out?

I still love you though.

Posted by Ralph_W on 2013-09-20 19:45:20

Right now, I think they lose against the Giants, the Texans and at Buffalo, and the game against Tennessee could be close. Still, you´re right, the fact that it´s not blatantly laughable should be counted as a huge upgrade for KC.

Posted by Goéland on 2013-09-20 19:18:25

I completely agree. The defense is good, but I maintain that it´s not dominant after watching last night´s game. As for the offense, frankly, I find it limited, uncreative and unable to sustain long drives. In my opinion, Smith yesterday displayed both his best qualities (not turning the ball over, generally good timing with his WRs, being able to scramble a bit) and his worst shortcomings (keeping the ball too damn long, taking sacks, not capable of big plays). Against the worst teams, his qualities are enough for a decent win; but against good teams, his defects are just too limiting.

Additionally, Ted, despite his passing game that emphasizes short routes and throws, I find his accuracy not as good as touted. Several of his incomplete passes yesterday were, in my opinion, because of bad throws.

As for KC´s 3rd/4th down conversions, they´re atrocious . They´re now 15/49 in the season (30%). Yesterday they had 6 of 20, and it wasn´t because of distance. Of those 20 situations, 9 needed 4 yards or less. 2 were converted. So let´s see:- 3 running plays (all failed)- 6 times Smith could make a play. He failed on 4 of those. (66%)

As for the long distance ones, 4 of 11 isn´t great either, and the conversions were more because of the bad defense than anything else (no, seriously. Those 4 conversions were a 15 yard pass on 3rd and 15, a 51 yard pass on 3rd and 5, a 26 yard pass on a 3rd and 19! The only one I give him credit for is a 9 yard pass on a 3rd and 4).

And anyone who´s watched Philadelphia´s defense knows it is staggeringly bad. Even if you believe the conversions outlined above are repeatable feats and not flukes, given the prowess against 3rd downs of Denver´s D (9/33 right now), do we really believe KC´s offense can overcome Jack del Rio´s unit, not prone to breakdowns like Philly´s fire dumpster of a defense is?

Posted by Goéland on 2013-09-20 19:12:39

No doubt about his clock management issues. He needs a full-time assistant to help him with that. He's one of the best coaches at establishing and maintaining a truly holistic and consistent program, though, and you can see a lot of signs that he's getting that done in KC.

Posted by Ted Bartlett on 2013-09-20 19:08:42

In the past, when an expansion team entered the league, the most efficient way to begin and try to win a few games and generate some buzz among the fan base was to build a defense first, to go along with an efficient, if under talented offense. It was seen as the cheaper and quicker way to gain some notoriety. You could look to an early John Fox coached team as an example, if I'm not mistaken. This is what we're seeing in KC. While not an expansion team, they're kind of starting over. Andy Reid is a good coach to get the ball rolling. Where they're going to get their butts handed to them is when it comes down to crunch time and the game is close, and few ticks remain on the clock. While Reid is a good coach in most areas, he is by far the absolute worst head coach at clock management that I have ever witnessed, without a close second.

Where are the losses? The toughest teams (New York, Houston) have to go to Kansas City. I'm not saying it's likely I'll collect $100 from Yahmule , just that it's possible. Before the season, it would have been unthinkable.

Posted by Ted Bartlett on 2013-09-20 18:47:33

Winessed

Posted by RyanHennigan on 2013-09-20 18:35:28

"8-0 Kansas City" ?!?!

Posted by SterlingMalloryArcher on 2013-09-20 18:11:53

*Makes mental note*

Posted by Ted Bartlett on 2013-09-20 17:57:40

How about Dallas? They pretty good receivers.

Posted by Ted Bartlett on 2013-09-20 17:57:04

I think KC has quietly been building a fairly talented roster for a couple of years now. They were bound to come back down to reality after winning the AFCW three years ago, but posting the league-worst record the next year was more of a reflection of the injuries they sustained at the time (and also the whole Haley mess). now that they've got a legit coach that talent should finally fulfill a bit of it's potential. That said, I still don't see them as a complete team like the Broncos, seahawks, 49r's, etc. I'd say they're solidly above average.

Posted by Hercules_Rockefeller on 2013-09-20 17:55:30

Witnessed.

Posted by Rollston Frangopoulos on 2013-09-20 17:43:44

Losing Clady hurts us more against teams like the chiefs that have two good pass rushing ends. It will make life more difficult for our offense, and at the worst, it will expose Manning to more hits increasing his chance of injury. Additionally, since you point out that they have two good man cover corners to take away our receivers, without Clady, and having to put a tight end in to help Clark block, it may limit Welker's playing time. Welker could be our key to dismantling their defense.

Posted by Rollston Frangopoulos on 2013-09-20 17:42:07

If you want to know how we know that they haven't played anyone good it's because we have eyes and we watched the games. :-) I just don't think they've played anyone with enough good wide receivers to be able to really challenge the Chiefs defense yet. They are giving up 5.5 yards per rushing attempt that isn't a good defense. Yes they have good pieces and are winning the games they should win but they've got some glaring holes as well. My guess would be that next week against the Giants they get destroyed and this piece looks a little silly. The Giants have enough pieces to get them out of man coverage and are dedicated enough to the run that that 5.5 yards per attempt is just going to expose the Chiefs.

Posted by Fan in Exile on 2013-09-20 17:33:26

My comment on Dallas was strictly about talent. I agree about their coaching and discipline, and the rest.

The Chiefs manned up against Dez Bryant, Miles Austin, and Jason Witten, and did a reasonably good job. Dez got deep on them once, but despite good overall numbers, they prevented him from having the big impact on the game that he can have.

As for the cream of the AFC, the good news for KC is that they mostly miss having to play it, based upon a 4th place schedule. They have to play Houston at home, fraudulent Indy at home, and Denver twice, but they miss New England, Baltimore, and Cincinnati.

Posted by Ted Bartlett on 2013-09-20 17:32:23

Beware the Kansas City Chiefs?

Beware the jaberwock, the jubjub bird, and shun the frumious bandersnatch.

Posted by PiperAR on 2013-09-20 17:30:02

Ted, I will send you a check for $100 if Kansas City goes 8-0.

Witnesses.

Posted by Yahmule on 2013-09-20 17:29:54

You're right - their schedule is tougher in the second half. I don't believe in Indy or Washington much, and San Diego looks inconsistent to me.

Posted by Ted Bartlett on 2013-09-20 17:27:33

It is a bit of an indictment of the AFC, that's true. KC needs better players at WR and TE before they'll be a good offense, and they could use some help on the interior of their O-line too. There are some good pieces in place now, though.

The defense is what has been so impressive. They did all of the things you need to do to slow down a Chip Kelly offense last night.

As for sample size, there's a definite place for that. I'm giving an opinion on a small sample size, which is kind of what I do. Official pronouncements can come later based on more data.

Posted by Ted Bartlett on 2013-09-20 17:26:25

Right! How do you not capitalize on that? Philly was legit just handing them chance after chance, and Smith had to settle for field goals. Going to be tough against the cream of the AFC to get away with that stuff.

I also disagree with Ted's assessment that the Cowboys can beat any team in the league on any day. I know, I know, they have heaps of talent, but they're poorly coached, not very disciplined, etc. And even if they do have all that talent, they haven't shown much to me yet. I figure both Dallas and KC are bound for 8-8 campaigns.

Posted by booboodevo on 2013-09-20 17:26:14

And awesome field position to boot. The average starting field position for the 1st half was the 45 yard line

Posted by Broncosnipe on 2013-09-20 17:12:18

I'll get crucified for this, but I just don't see it with Smith. You're right, he doesn't make the back breaking mistake that will kill a team. What he does is kill a team slowly by having no "on" switch where he becomes a super duper competitor and starts willing his team to victory. What does that look like? From Simmons' post yesterday...

the Chiefs have punted 16 times (tied for third-highest in NFL) and tallied 10 points and nine punts in two second halves … they've had three drives all season of more than 50 yards …

They have short "drives" that stall out, and they punt. They play field position (not necessarily a death knell) football rather than scoring points football. Even last night, handed the ball at the Philly 5 after a turnover, they had to settle for 3. Against what looks to be an absolutely god-awful defense.

Five turnovers, and they scored one (1) offensive touchdown.

Five turnovers, and they scored nineteen offensive points.

+5 in turnover differential, and they won by 10, and the game was still very much in doubt late in the fourth quarter.

To me, that's not a recipe for extensive success.

Posted by booboodevo on 2013-09-20 17:06:49

Pretty sure PHI just isn't that good

Posted by Andpark on 2013-09-20 16:54:38

As usual Ted, I both agree and disagree with you. The Chiefs are indeed looking legit early in the year. I feel that subpar coaching and Quarterback play ultimately sunk them last year, and both have now been updated to competent replacements. However, I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. I know this will sound like heresy, but I enjoy the Raiders and Chiefs rivalries more when they field competent teams. San Diego has proven to be a boring rival, even when they fielded a ton of talent. I would much rather Have the old three way rivalry between the Raiders, Broncos and Chiefs back.

Posted by Adrian Brody's O face on 2013-09-20 16:52:47

The cream-puff schedule the Chiefs have in the first half of the season is incredible. The Giants and Houston are the only teams of note, IMO. I guess they could go into Tennessee and lose unexpectedly, but I don't really see it.

Down the stretch, though, the get the Broncos twice, the Bolts twice, Indy and at Washington. That stretch will really show how far the Chiefs have come.

Briefly, about holding on to the ball ... the more carries Knile Davis gets, the more likely it is to see fumbles. He seems to be their primary guy when Charles is off the field, and as anyone who watched the game last night knows, Davis was a fumbler extraordinaire in college.

Posted by Royalwithcheese on 2013-09-20 16:39:11

In the preseason as a thought exercise I went through and predicted what I thought each team would end the season at. I had the Chiefs at 12-4 when it all ended because they seemed to keep coming up against teams at home who they could beat with a good defense and a ball control offense.

I also believe Andy Reid is a good coach who gets the most out of what he has. So far they match what I thought would happen almost exactly. I even have the Broncos splitting the season with them losing in Arrowhead since that is still a brutal place to play.

Nice to see a much more detailed breakdown of why they are doing well so far that doesn't seem to simplify it as some seem to be doing.

Posted by Matthew Barrett on 2013-09-20 16:35:17

matriculate. How classic KC.

I've been believing that they would be very improved if for no other reason they have a damned fine HC.

Now can they be consistent the rest of the season? And do they have depth to cover for injuries? Also a big question.

But the same applies to the Broncos. Especially on the OL as we speak.

But you do not have 9 pro bowlers from a VERY lousy team if they did not have talent.

KC will be a legit advisary very soon if not NOW.

Posted by Lonestar47 on 2013-09-20 16:31:12

I figured the Cheifs would be improved this year and even considered they would be the runner up in the AFCW but I did not see a 3-0 start and getting past the Giants and Raiders will be tough.

This sucks. I hate sharing the AFCW honors with them at the moment and I certainly don't like that they own the division if we lose (not going to happen this week).

Posted by RyanHennigan on 2013-09-20 16:29:31

Their offensive line looked pretty terrible. A three man rush was getting in the backfield incredibly quick and on a pretty regular basis. I sincerely doubt they will be 8-0 when the broncos face them.

Posted by Broncosnipe on 2013-09-20 16:23:53

I am not sure that the game last night reflected a solid defense as much as it reflected an offense (Eagles) that didn't seem to know what to do. Honestly felt the same watching the Dallas/KC game. Last night the defense did lack the ability to shut down the run up the middle and they gave up several large plays. They are improved and they did win the games. Not sure, though, how good they really are.

Posted by dolph50 on 2013-09-20 16:06:30

If the Cheifs, and their one offensive touchdown yesterday against a particularly bad defense, is the 2nd best team youve seen in the AFC, that's an indictment on the AFC.I do agree their D is good, very good in fact, but right now their results came against a terrible Jax team, a decent Cowboys team, and an Eagles team that legit shot itself in the foot several times. Im gonna wait till the sample size gets a bit larger.

Posted by brettrelax on 2013-09-20 16:03:26

2nd most impressive team in the AFC, I have to agree with you. I am kind of assuming you think Denver is the first.

I don't fully trust their offensive line and I'm not sure about Charles ability to stay healthy for the entire season if they don't monitor his work load. I also don't think they are working with a great receiving corps. Avery is okay but not studly. That said, they will be in every game because of their defense.

Posted by RockyMtnThunder on 2013-09-20 16:01:46

Nice Ted, I agree with you about Smith, he's the steady player KC needs to run that offense. The D takes care of itself. It certainly would be something else to see two unbeaten teams square up at Mile High in late November, bring it on!